Straw Dogs (2011) - Action, Drama, Thriller

Hohum Score

85

Boring

Los Angeles screenwriter David Sumner relocates with his wife to her hometown in the deep South. There, while tensions build between them, a brewing conflict with locals becomes a threat to them both.

IMDB: 5.8
Director: Rod Lurie
Stars: James Marsden, Kate Bosworth
Length: 110 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 31 out of 148 found boring (20.94%)

One-line Reviews (122)

The performances are solid but uninspiring; the script is flat as a pancake; the action sequences are put together with competent professionalism rather than powerful raw energy.

The build up to the climax is unbearable.

What the film does best is creating tension that keeps building and gets more intense as the story proceeds.

There are a lot worse films you could waste your money on, but still, If the premise of this film interests you I would recommend the two remakes of either I Spit On Your Grave or The Last House On The Left, they are both far more superior and are much more entertaining.

What was shocking in 1971 becomes dull in 2011 .

worth watching .

Most of us agree that remakes are a pretty pointless affair.

The first hour and a half is pretty slow and a lot of build up to the climax.

It was a total waste of money, and the script did not make any of the character's believable.

An utterly pointless remake.

So, in the spirit of this, I am going to add yet another pointless review expressing my disappointment with this insipid remake.

Great acting Great action Worth watching You won't be disappointed.

this is a very boring and dumb movie.

There are some goofs in the film, but I guess it all adds to the plot and makes it an entertaining movie.

Deeply flawed, uninteresting and just plain boring.

I'm generally predisposed to original films and not their sequels, so my antenna was up for this picture figuring that I would likely be disappointed on one hand, while realizing that films made today make the most of a grittier and more intense style when it comes to themes of violence and revenge.

Where the 1971 version had tension and excitement, the 2011 version was often boring and all over the place.

If you want to see a quality remake don't waste your time.

I can say that the film was entertaining and it did keep me invested.

the worst movie remake i ever seen so far!!

Overall, as much as I loved the remake of Wes Craven's "Last House on the Left," I think those expecting a horror movie with intense gore and nude blonds will be disappointed by "Straw Dogs.

That's so cliché.

I'm going to go out on a limb and take the minority view here (so far), as I found the picture to be a worthy remake and a compelling story in it's own right.

I really enjoyed it!

As a standalone movie, it's a pretty tense thriller with a gripping storyline.

If you want mind puzzling, action thrilling, artistic or philosophic scenes,FORGET ABOUT IT.

After watching this boring 2 hours of film it does kind of make me want to see the original material and hopefully it will maybe change my mind about the story a tad.

Another more compelling treatment of the rewrite had to do with Amy Sumner.

The film is quite intense throughout, but the real intensity comes out in the heavily impressive action packed climax.

It's too slow to be classed as a psychological thriller.

Get your popcorn, put your feet up and enjoy, it's not fantastic, but it's very worth watching.

Dull, unnecessary remake .

So, what was shocking in 1971 is boring to today's audiences?

the worst movie remake i ever seen so far!!

By the middle of the climax I was actually bored.

In this dreadful, dreary, condescending, and pointless remake of the 1971 classic, a mild-mannered man and his hot wife move to the Deep South and run into a mess of trouble, mostly having to do with rednecks, hillbillies, and small-town hatred.

Like I said the film was slow, it didn't get anywhere until about 3/4 into the film.

This pointless and insulting remake of an American classic is a perfect example of my belief.

Sam Peckinpah's original was great: gritty, atmosphere-laden, slow-burning, engrossing.

This is a very engaging, character driven film with a lot of disturbing moments.

There was no plot development, you don't get to know any of the characters, and all in all, it was just plain and dull from beginning to end.

But the second group saw the movie without preconceptions, and I'm interested to see they mostly found it dull, boring, slow, pointless and generally unsatisfactory, despite a decent cast and smooth production.

It grounds the story in character and makes the third act very satisfying, exciting and earned.

The scary scenes aren't scary, the climax is expected but still jarring, there is no nuance to be found in any character, and the movie feels a lot longer than it really is, because there are many scenes that exist merely to pad the running time, rather than to advance something as mundane as a plot.

As Charlie's advances toward Amy become more intense and their disdain for David more callous, an inevitable showdown gradually begins to build.

Characters are one- dimensional and much of the sub-plots and scenes seem contrived.

Other than that it was a fantastic film and I highly recommend it.

What I found was both intriguing and disappointing.

It was very unpredictable, the directing was good, the casting couldn't have been much better, the acting was great and the conflict was strong and ongoing.

However, this film is worth at least a one-time viewing since it is rather good, entertaining and well done.

Pointless remake of the year part 76 consists of nothing new and characters you've just gotta hate.

don't waste your time .

I say,if the movie pisses you off,scares you or gets your adrenaline going,it was worth it.

It starts with slow opening scenes and gradually builds suspense and raises intensity towards the end delivering an explosive ending.

It was so slow, the storyline was terrible, not scary or thrilling at all.

Alik Sakharov's Cinematography is absorbing.

We thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish.

The theme of a peaceful man finally breaking is merely hinted at here; Hoffman's slow change in the original is replaced by a blink-and-you-miss-it transformation by Marsden that, on the whole, is as senseless as the violence it provokes.

Not a blockbuster, but worth watching.

It is hugely discomforting but also hugely compelling when we see Hoffman's previously mild (repressed) character experience some glee during and after the bloodbath.

Still, I prefer the ending of the original, which I recall was more intense and more "surreal", made to show a man protecting his "castle".

"Straw Dogs" is one of the most intense films I've seen in years.

First thing that bugged me about the film was that it was very slow.

In good thrillers, the slow scenes at the beginning are meant to be character-building scenes.

Entertaining .

Straw Dogs: An Entertaining and Frightening Remake .

It's bland, it's boring.

straw characters living in a dull world which then turns violent .

Next time someone tries this I really hope they can give us something worth watching.

The first half is engaging and decently written, and it's towards the beginning of the second hour that the intensity increases.

The pace of the first hour of the film is brutally slow.

Terrible script, terrible acting, cliché after cliché.. yadda yadda yadda.. I feel the most frustrating part of this film, for me, was all the unanswered questions that came to mind once the end credits started to roll.

STRAW DOGS is a gripping thriller, in the same vein as THE STRANGERS or LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (Remake) .

He really had to play two different roles in this film and it leads to some shocking and unexpected moments.

The original film with Dustin Hoffman was riveting.

Intense film, great acting, true to the original .

The producers looked back at the old film and enhanced the parts of the original that were too slow or didn't make a whole lot of sense, before modernizing the whole thing.

Marsden and Bosworth cannot compare to the more believable Dustin Hoffman and Susan George, only Skarsgård and Woods are alright among the nasty bozo buddies, the plot follows roughly the same story as the original, only relocating from rural England to redneck America, only problem it feels like a lazy effort to recreate what we've already seen, yes it is more gory towards the end, but the synonymous rape scene and violence are no longer shocking, definitely stick to the original, this is a pretty dull and boring psychological thriller remake.

It's engaging, sometimes funny, often intense, and excellent performance-driven filmmaking.

Since then, we've seen far worse gore and brutality on screen and remaking it (quite faithfully to be fair) seems a little pointless.

STRAW DOGS is an intense action thriller, and I mean it.

Don't waste your money or time watching.

What made the Original version so great was the unexpected.

Straw Dogs is intense to watch!

That must mean that viewers deserved to waste their time and money, because that's exactly how I felt after watching this.

Inferior but exciting remake about a writer and his wife are threatened by hooligans locals .

Either way, a "just cause" would have definitely made the ending sequence much more enjoyable.

It starts out kind of slow which was a good thing because you get to know the characters.

I was looking for something entertaining and chose those at the last minute.

This version is very unpredictable and suspenseful.

the town was kind of empty,small population where word gets out easy and everyone seems to be in on everything.

5/10 Worth watching

If you're unfamiliar with the original movie and you're willing to put up with the slow pace then I think you'll find this to be a great movie.

But, again, only if "thriller" means nothing happens until we get a lot of gruesome violence at the end.

just a waste of time!

The resulting violence is bland and unexciting.

Peckinpah's original raised questions - you left the theater feeling awkward, self-conscious, asking the same question the lead character was asking himself - 'how do I find my way home now?

Please spare yourself the 110 agonizing minutes and do something more useful/entertaining with your time!!!

The film is entertaining and keeps your attention from the beginning to the end - and what an end!

As is frequently the case, during some of the more exciting action scenes, the lighting is kept so low you have to guess at what is happening.

It is still as intense as it was in 1971 and actually raises a lot of disturbing questions.

Her character is very empty and one dimensional and while she goes through a lot too, you won't really care one way or another.

But it fails to do the former - everything is easily predictable - and since we never really get into the heads of the two leads, it cannot hope to achieve the latter, either.

This is predictable.

This wholly unnecessary remake on the other hand is amateurish swill - banal photography, drama-class acting (and why not?

It also comes with some very gripping scenes so overall I think its worth a watch exspecially if you are a horror fan.

Unlike many, I found this movie to be very entertaining.

My boyfriend fell asleep twice.

Comparing the 2011 re-make to the original film, the stories are very similar, whoever I found in parts where the original was a little slow, the re-make turns up the intensity, and that's the way things should be.

I found it thoroughly enjoyable, gripping and tense from start to finish.

Intense, Brutal and Brilliant.

On the whole a credible remake and well worth watching, even if you know what will happen to some degree.

But also since most of the characters were a bit dull, it took away any sympathy you could have for them.

This remake is dull, with stupid situations and non-likable and badly developed characters.

There a holes in the plot, and it is not meant to be realistic, but to deliver a great Hollywood experience and I highly recommend it to anyone who looks for an intense movie to be thrilled and have a good time.

Some of the second-long inserts are pointless.

While Peckinpah's film rubbed your face in its graphic content, Lurie allows the audience to experience a more humanistic and suspenseful approach.

" Those who want an entertaining, full-throttle psychological thriller with good suspense, the right amount of violence, and nifty performances from the cast will find it to be an exceptional remake that stands out among other failures (ahem, Gus Van Sant's duplicate of "Psycho").

Otherwise, the new "Straw Dogs" boasts a gripping story, interesting characters, and some surprises that ought to keep audiences guessing throughout this unsavory saga.

Lurie's new version offered little of that but does work fine as a straightforward suspenseful thriller.

Now for some, that would be a fatal flaw, but I enjoyed it probably because the first one was so good.

STRAW DOGS is a well made action thriller which has plenty of intense moments, making it a worthy watch.